Comparing reactive versus empiric cerebrospinal fluid drainage strategies for spinal perfusion pressure optimization in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord hypoperfusion undermines clinical recovery in acute traumatic spinal cord injuries. New guidelines suggest cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is an important strategy for preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion in the acute post-injury phase.

METHODS

This study included participants presenting to a single level 1 trauma center between 2018 and 2022 with cervical or thoracic traumatic spinal cord injury severity grade A-C, as evaluated by the American spinal injury association impairment scale (AIS). The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two CSF drainage protocols in preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion; 1) draining CSF only when spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) drops below 65 mmHg (i.e. reactive) versus 2) empiric CSF drainage of 5-10 mL every hour. Intrathecal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and vasopressor utilization were compared using univariate T-test statistical analysis.

RESULTS

While there was no difference in the incidence of sub-optimal SCPP (<65 mmHg; p = 0.1658), reactively drained participants were more likely to exhibit critical hypoperfusion (<50 mmHg; p = 0.0030) despite also having lower average intrathecal pressures (p < 0.001). There were no differences in average SCPP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), or vasopressor utilization between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Empiric (vs reactive) CSF drainage resulted in fewer incidences of critical spinal cord hypoperfusion for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.